I have read Isabelle Kerr’s article and partially agree with her opinion,This is because she is right about most of the new ‘slang words’ being bizarre,nonsensical and pointless but while this is correct it is also their purpose to be bizarre and nonsensical to her.She constantly repeats that it was her generation that created the slang like a mantra but sadly it is not,If it was her generation that created it she should be able to understand it.

She says that it does not reflect the newer generation due to most of the new additions relating to ‘reputation,image and sex’, but what she fails to realise is that this is the case because of the fact that WE MADE THEM. this is a sign that she is not a part of our generation but a part of the one before us. My generation made slang words such as ‘moist’, which means that someone is an idiot. Another example of this is ‘wasteman’ which means “someone who does nothing with their life’ or depending on the person who is saying it it ‘someone who is idiotic and embarrassing’. All of these reflect someone’s image and reputation, but hey – I am a teenager at an English state secondary school! My life is all about reputation, image and sex!

In the final paragraph she says that ‘Shakespeare would be turning in his grave’ but what she fails to realise is that Shakespeare is a pioneer in English language and in his works some words that are still used today started off as slang in the first place like cold-blooded or uncomfortable; if she was an actual fan of Shakespeare and if she was actually in Bristol university she should know something this basic.
Isabelle Kerr states that its a battle to prove that were not all ‘ASBO-wielding yobs who cant communicate properly’ but what she fails to realize is that slang is mainly used interchangeably in a sentence, not comprising it. When I do what you call ‘not communicating properly’ I am actually just starting a sentence; the ‘slang’ that I use is aye. In a sentence from me this means “hey” or “I am speaking now” the old meaning of this word used to mean “I assent” in the 1570’s while in the 1200’s it meant ‘yes’. While this is slang where I live in London it is still commonly used in Scotland and wouldn’t be considered slang at all. I use ‘aye’ because it is often faster than trying to say ‘Listen to me” and all I have to do is raise my voice to make myself heard. This doesn’t make me lazy or an ‘ASBO-wielding yob’ it makes me efficient and coherent.

She also includes two comments that have absolutely no relevance to the subject which say : “its over, They’ve won” and “No wonder there’s so much youth unemployment” when this has no actual relevance to the subject and I had no idea there was some sort of ‘war’ going on; while she uses other people’s opinion to support her own, she is unable to provide us with any proof of it other than her own opinion. If you ask a piranha if it likes meat of course it will say yes. Similarly if you choose your audience who’s opinion is anti-slang then of course their comments will be anti-slang.

She then goes on to undo what she had been saying by using slang in a sentence without explaining it and then she says ‘Aight’ which I have never even heard or said before and even when I ask other people from my generation no-one seems to know what it is.

She says that the fact that Oxford is awarding these words a place within them is “Unrealistic and unnecessary” but what she fails to realize is that most slang fits the criteria for getting into the dictionary. All the Oxford dictionary requires is that the new term “being used in a variety of different sources (not just by one writer)”, (from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com). Only then can it becomes a candidate for inclusion in the OED.

She also states “these words unfairly represent what can only be represented as this generations feeble etymological contribution to the English language” This makes no sense due to the fact that the definition of etymology is “A chronological account of the birth and development of a particular word or element of a word, often delineating its spread from one language to another and its evolving changes in form and meaning” (http://www.dictionary.com/). What is slang but development of new language? The definition shows that slang can indeed be counted as a normal word because of the fact that all words have started somewhere,like with Shakespeare. The word twerk started in 1820 when its definition was “a twisting or jerking movement” which then evolved in 1928 to mean of a odd or negative type “a twist” and eventually to what it is now.

So finally in my opinion I disagree with her because of the fact that Shakespeare who she said would be “turning in his grave” had created slang himself.